Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/28/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| State Board of Education Discussion | |
| Presentation: Alaska Policy Forum | |
| HB258 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 258
"An Act directing the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities to develop and implement standards
and operating procedures allowing for the use in the
construction and maintenance of transportation
projects and public facilities and in the construction
of projects by public and private entities of gravel
or aggregate materials that contain a limited amount
of naturally occurring asbestos, and authorizing use
on an interim basis of those materials for certain
transportation projects and public facilities;
relating to certain claims arising out of or in
connection with the use of gravel or aggregate
materials containing a limited amount of naturally
occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective
date."
3:13:48 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, had
previously discussed changes appearing in the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 258. He noted that new fiscal notes
had been disseminated to member packets. The sponsor had
worked closely with all involved departments including
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT),
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Department
of Law (DOL), Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DLWD), and other.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether members had all the
amendments pertaining to the legislation. He asked staff to
compile a packet of amendments to distribute to committee
members. He believed there were three amendments.
Mr. Anderson discussed that the collaborative work on the
bill had been a success. The fiscal notes had evolved and
reflected changes in the legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that representatives from multiple
departments and Nana Regional Corporation were available to
testify.
3:16:50 PM
Representative Gara relayed that his preference would be
that non-asbestos containing alternatives would be used if
available. He pointed to language on pages 6 and 7 that
specified the item would be considered, but it was not
mandatory that non-asbestos material was used. He believed
another part of the bill made the item mandatory and asked
for an explanation.
Mr. Anderson replied that the designation of use of gravel
versus naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) gravel was found
in the site-specific use plan (pages 7 through 9). He
explained that the section established stages of how to
approach the issue. He referred to the flow chart included
in members' packets (copy on file). He elaborated that the
use of non-NOA material was required when it was
economically reasonable.
Representative Gara noted that the new language took care
of one of his concerns. He believed the sponsor had worked
to address the concept of another of his concerns. He
elaborated that there were three villages where there was
known NOA that may need to be used due to the absence of
any other viable options. He believed there should be signs
posted to inform residents of potential airborne asbestos
containing materials in the area; Amendment 2 addressed the
issue. He wondered whether the posting of signs had been
addressed in the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied that Roger Healy from DOT was
available to discuss signage and notification. He furthered
that the bill included the requirements to provide ample
notification of the NOA zones.
3:20:57 PM
Representative Gara clarified that he wanted to make sure
that people were made aware of the NOA use so they could
notify the government if there were alternatives available.
He also wanted people to be informed of the work taking
place so they could choose to wear a mask or take other
precautions.
Mr. Anderson pointed to page 11, lines 17 through 23. The
bill had been expanded from the language "workplace safety"
to read "and air quality standards relating to the project
and to ensure the health and safety of communities affected
by construction projects that use gravel or other aggregate
material containing naturally occurring asbestos." The
language did not directly address the notification, but it
did expand the requirements to workplace and community
safety.
ROGER HEALY, CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, replied that public notification
took on several different forms from the department's
perspective. One issue was related to workplace safety and
workers during construction; another aspect related to the
public during and after construction and how materials were
contained. He believed the intent of Amendment 2 was to
ensure that some form of public and potentially future
worker notification existed. He recommended that details
should get ironed out in the regulation process. The
department was under obligation in workplace safety to do
Material Safety Data Sheets and other similar
notifications. He reiterated his recommendation to work out
the appropriate signage notification through regulation.
Representative Gara agreed and did not want to specify what
the sign should look like. He was also concerned about
residents in areas where the asbestos may be airborne due
to construction. He wondered whether there was anything in
the bill that required the department to provide the
notification that would be implemented by regulation. He
stressed that he wanted the issue addressed in the
legislation.
Mr. Healy responded that there was a requirement for
workplace notification. Additionally, there were many
requirements for notifications of hazards to public in a
construction zone. He detailed that hazards could include
naturally occurring asbestos, dust, machinery, etc. He
added that the overall notification of a construction zone
and its potential hazards was broad.
Mr. Anderson pointed to language included on page 7 (lines
2 through 4) related to NOA zone setup requirements that
read "the department shall notify potentially affected
persons that the area has been designated in an area where
immunity may be granted under AS 09.65.245(a)." The
requirement was applicable to the zone and surrounding
areas that may be impacted by airborne materials.
3:27:17 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to page 6, line 17 that read
"for causing asbestos related injuries." She wondered why
the specific language had been used. She believed it could
imply to a litigant or a worker who contracted a disease
(that may be related to exposure) that the specific
exposure was the cause of the related illness. She wondered
whether the meaning of the language "was contributing to or
causing" or if it was acceptable to have a blanket
statement recognizing the connection that a contractor or
community had a liability if they chose to mine a certain
area. She queried why the specific language had been
chosen.
Mr. Anderson replied that the language had been changed in
a prior committee from a broader statement of asbestos
injury. There had been concern with previous language that
there was a chance that if there was an accident related to
faulty machinery that the company may be able to use the
asbestos related injury claim and therefore obtain immunity
from responsibility of the accident.
EMILY NAUMAN, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), added that the language was meant to link
back to injuries listed on page 4, line 4 including death,
injury, illness, disability, property damage, or any other
damages resulting from the use of gravel or other material
that contained NOA.
Vice-chair Fairclough surmised that the "contributing to"
was not an issue because the language on page 6 referred to
a list of specific items on page 4. Ms. Nauman responded in
the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the reference to
California's Air Resource Board Method 435 provided her
with some comfort that at least one state was working to
access aggregate material that contained naturally
occurring asbestos (page 6, line 6). She looked at the
interim standards for application of asbestos bulk testing
on page 14, which used the California standard. She
wondered whether the state would continue to rely on
California language or if the term "interim" implied that
the standard would change. She asked if it was appropriate
to include the California standard in state statute if a
change was possible.
3:32:30 PM
Mr. Anderson answered that while Alaska was developing its
regulations the California standard would be used. Once DOT
had written the regulations there would be a discussion to
determine which method of testing would be used going
forward. The idea was to avoid limiting the state to the
California standards and to allow for room to expand. He
explained that California had not placed its standard in
statute; therefore, it had flexibility and had been able to
change the standard from 5 percent down to 0.25 percent.
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that the California
reference would be embedded in state statute if it was
included on page 6 of the legislation. She elaborated that
the bill did discuss that DOT would develop standards, but
the legislation did not include a section that would repeal
the California standard once Alaska's own standards had
been established.
Mr. Healy replied that one of the points of identifying the
California method was because of the detection limit that
offered the analytical declination 0.25 percent and below.
The reference on page 6 provided the state with guidance
related to the detection limit and the level of asbestos.
Vice-chair Fairclough responded that she was fine with the
language and reiterated that it would be used throughout a
statute. She wondered why a maximum amount of naturally
occurring asbestos had not been included in the
legislation.
Mr. Anderson responded that the largest concern from DOL
and DOT was the idea that a number was arbitrarily selected
that could not be justified through data or other sources
of information. He furthered that it had been difficult to
establish an analytical threshold for the floor based off
of data that could be justified if it was ever taken to
court; the same was true for a maximum threshold, given
that a significant amount of data did not exist.
Representative Gara communicated that he wanted people near
construction zones to be aware of potential airborne
asbestos. He pointed to page 7, line 2 that read "the
department shall notify potentially affected persons" that
there may be airborne asbestos. He wanted to make certain
that notifications were decipherable. He believed his
Amendment 2 was too complicated and wondered whether it
would be feasible to insert the words "including through
signage" following "the department shall notify" on page 7,
line 2. He explained that the language would provide
departments with flexibility when designing and posting the
notice.
Representative Joule asked DOT whether it would post signs
with or without the insertion of the words "including
through signage."
Mr. Healy replied that he did not believe signs were posted
for items such as the exposure of diesel fuel during
construction. Under current statute DOT would not post
signs making the public aware if the department or other
was using naturally occurring asbestos in a component of a
construction project. He deferred to DEC for additional
detail. He believed the best way to notify the public was
project and site dependent in many ways. He added that much
of the bill and potential regulations had been patterned
off of the California method; it did not use signage of the
sort mentioned.
Representative Joule surmised that locals in the Ambler and
Upper Kobuk areas were aware of the issue and signage would
probably not be necessary for them; however, he wondered
how non-residents would know about the issue. He thought it
may not be an issue for locals because they would just be
happy to have jobs. He wondered whether the sign would be
beneficial for people coming in from outside the areas. He
asked how the change would impact the fiscal note and
wondered whether it would need to be brought back before
the committee.
Mr. Healy replied that there were two issues, (1) whether
signage should be posted presently because of the naturally
occurring asbestos that currently existed in the Ambler and
Upper Kobuk areas and (2) should signage be used during
construction and operation of projects. One issue related
to new projects and the other related to existing
conditions. The department would need to know whether it
was expected to post signs under one or both circumstances
in order to determine the fiscal note impact.
3:44:43 PM
Representative Doogan queried whether the signage impacted
the state's legal liability one way or the other.
SARITHA ANJILVEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
TRANSPORTATION SECTION, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW
(via teleconference), addressed whether signage would
present any legal liability to the state. She responded
that under the bill's current form it presented immunity to
the state provided that regulations were followed;
regulations would include site-specific plans and notice of
potentially affected persons. The language was vague to
allow DOT to make notice requirements in its own
regulations. She reiterated that immunity would be
preserved if DOT followed its own regulations.
Co-Chair Stoltze concluded that it would pay off to post
signs. Ms. Anjilvel responded that if DOT regulations were
structured to require the posting of signs, the regulations
would need to be followed. The state had to follow its own
rules.
Co-Chair Stoltze surmised that DOT would be posting signs
with or without the additional directive language in the
legislation. Ms. Anjilvel agreed.
3:47:45 PM
Representative Gara relayed that he may offer Amendment 1
on the House floor, but would not offer it in committee
(copy on file). He discussed the serious nature of
asbestosis and mesothelioma. Asbestos became a problem when
it was airborne, not when it was undisturbed. He understood
the desire to limit the liability of those involved because
they were in a difficult situation. Amendment 1 would have
prohibited class actions and punitive damages; however, it
would provide people with compensatory damages to pay for
health care costs, lost wages, or other basic damages. He
hoped people would think about the concept and any
potential alternatives.
3:50:09 PM
Representative Gara WITHDREW Amendment 2 (copy on file). He
MOVED to Amend Amendment 3 to read:
Page 6, line 19:
Insert "after at least 2 public hearings," after
"request."
There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was AMENDED.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED to Amendment 3.
Representative Gara explained that he had originally
thought a public vote on the use of the asbestos was a good
idea; however, many people believed that was not the right
way to go. Under the current legislation a municipality
could opt in, but that did not necessarily mean the
municipality would work with the public (notices could be
unclear and difficult to understand). Amendment 3 would
require at least two public hearings on the issue. He
believed the communities in Representative Joule's district
had already gone through a public hearing process.
Representative Joule responded that all municipality
meetings and agendas were public. He thought municipalities
went through several public hearings on issues. He believed
the issue was already accomplished, but asked for an
opinion from DOT.
Mr. Healy responded that the current public meeting
requirement would apply to DOT and third-party projects. He
furthered that DOT would require two public meetings for
any project seeking plan approval for the use of naturally
occurring asbestos. The requirement placed the burden on
the department to complete the use in accordance with the
plan and to have two public meetings.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the intent of Amendment 3 and
whether the public meetings would be held by the locality
or a state agency.
Representative Gara assumed that the public hearings would
be held by the municipality or community.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the language could be
interpreted that DOT would be required to hold public
meetings.
Representative Joule agreed. He believed the goal of the
amendment was already in place.
Representative Gara, in response to a question by Co-Chair
Stoltze, WITHDREW Amendment 3. He believed the amendment
should be rewritten and offered on the House floor. He
noted that the public tended not to follow normal assembly
meetings unless an issue was highlighted beforehand.
Representative Joule did not know whether the requirement
would change anything in terms of public action. He
believed either the public would be interested in an issue
or not. He noted that the whole town of Ambler had shown up
to multiple meetings in support of the work. He would work
on the issue with Representative Gara.
3:55:56 PM
Representative Gara MOVED Amendment 4:
Page 7, line 2, after "notify" and Page 13, line 22
after "notify" insert ", including through signage,"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Representative Joule had no objection.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his objection.
Representative Costello observed that the amendment related
to bill version L. Representative Gara clarified that the
Amendment related to bill version Y.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
3:57:58 PM
AT EASE
3:59:43 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes (copy on
file). She highlighted zero fiscal notes from the
Departments of Law and Natural Resources. The third note
was from the Department of Environmental Conservation for
$27,800 in FY 13, $28,200 in FY 14, and $10,700 per year
for FY 15 through FY 18. The next note affected the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities in the
amount of $210,100 in FY 13, $190,600 in FY 14, $121,800 in
FY 15, $66,800 in FY 16, and $31,500 for FY 17 and FY 18
for full-time equivalent positions. The fifth fiscal note
impacted the Department of Health and Social Services for
$21,300 in FY 13, $20,100 in FY 14, and zero for FY 15
through FY 18. She noted that the DHSS note backup showed a
0.10 health program manager position that was not
referenced elsewhere on the note.
Mr. Anderson communicated that DHSS would need the health
program manager position while regulations were developed
in the first two years. He believed the increment was
included under "Personal Services" and not in the
"Positions" category.
Vice-chair Fairclough communicated that the remaining
fiscal note was a zero allocation for FY 13 through FY 18
for the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
Representative Joule concurred with the fiscal notes.
Representative Doogan believed that the legislation would
cost approximately $260,000 in the first year and would
decline in subsequent years.
Representative Joule responded in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 258(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion. He
communicated that he wanted to help Representative Joule's
district, but he expressed concern that there was no safe
level of airborne asbestos established (California had
reduced the level to 0.25 percent) and that he did not have
a way of knowing the right level. He WITHDREW his
OBJECTION.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that the California 0.25
percent represented a floor level and not a ceiling.
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 258(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation
and with one new fiscal impact note from Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, one new fiscal impact
note from Department of Environmental Conservation, one new
zero note from Department of Natural Resources, one new
zero note from Department of Law, and previously published
fiscal notes: FN1 (DLWD), FN3 (DHSS).
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the schedule for the following
day.
Representative Gara made an apology to Mr. Boyle. He
believed he should not have gone through Mr. Boyle's prior
school board record.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HFIN EDC Presentation 3.28.12PM.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN School Choice presentation 3.28.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HFIN State BOE presentation Cox Bio 3.28.12.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
|
| HB258 Amendment-4 Gara.pdf |
HFIN 3/28/2012 1:30:00 PM |
HB 258 |